Have The Gays Gone Too Far?

[stevenkesslar]

So there's been a lot of talk about the one year anniversary of the repeal of Roe v. Wade.  Hard to believe it's less than 20 years since one US state legalized same sex marriage.  And less than a decade since it was legal for us to marry nationally.  Of course, from a global perspective, it's still illegal to breathe while being Gay in a number of countries.  Let alone have sex as a Gay man legally.

I recall when SCOTUS gave same sex marriage the okay in all 50 states I worried that it was inviting a quick and huge backlash in states like Mississippi.  As someone who spent a few years volunteering to raise money and go door to door for same sex marriage,  I was actually surprised how conservative I felt.  Particularly given that the barriers - legal and also public opinion - seemed to fall like dominoes   But now the growing conservative reaction is loud and clear.  Oh, for the good old days when everybody just loved Will and Grace.

Starbucks workers at 150 stores go on strike over Pride decorations

It's a sign of the times that when I saw that headline, it was not immediately clear to me whether it meant Starbucks employees (like some NFL players) were complaining about having to wear Pride flags or something.  Or whether Starbucks itself was retreating from pro-LGBTQ policies.  Happily, the article says some LGBTQ activists are concerned that in some (red state) parts of the US, Starbucks appears to be letting local stores basically decide, "Don't say Gay.  Or at least don't decorate with Gay stuff."   

Arguably, that's what can be viewed as "tolerance" these days.  I had to check, out of curiosity.  Chechnya, of all places, has a fake Starbucks.  It's not 100 % clear whether that's because the real Starbucks left, like they left Russia.  Or whether Starbucks would never locate in a rabidly anti-LGBTQ place like Chechnya, anyway.

The other headline that led to this post is this.  I'm posting both the headline and the key Gallup poll results below.

Are liberal social activists driving voters to the GOP?

The poll didn't literally ask, "Are The Gays going too far?"  But it's a safe bet that things like saying Gay in Florida, or whether we really need a federal law to stop The Gays from coming for your children, and mutilating their sex organs, is central to these shifts for many people.  The obvious good news, from an LGBTQ perspective, is that for the first time in this century (or all polling history) liberal social attitudes began to be equal to or greater than conservative ones.  Right around when same sex marriage prevailed.  But conservatism is having a comeback, as Gallup reports.  It's still less of a comeback than when Obama was elected, statistically.  But right now the wind is not at our backs.

Here's what I view as the core challenge, from the article above:

Quote

The way liberal activists prod the limits of delicate social issues without pushback from mainstream Democrats likely contributes to why an increasing number of Americans see themselves as social conservatives despite becoming objectively more liberal. There is also evidence that the slip away from the liberal label may translate to party identification and other policy areas as well.

So my question is simple:  Have The Gays gone too far?

The premise of that op/ed is that many "activists" have shifted away from "persuasion to change hearts and minds" in favor of  "in your face activism that demonizes those who have reservations or questions."   Fair point.  It's also fair to point out that the number of conservative leaders who seem to be intolerant, and are willing to demonize The Gays again, including as pedophiles and perverts, is growing.  

Should we be on defense, or offense, or both?

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

An interesting example of how this works in practice.  And how nuanced it is.  Overall, I take this to be mostly good news for The Gays.

Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections in dispute over services for same-sex weddings

Every poll I have seen documents that the overturning of Roe V. Wade, and maybe a broader perception that SCOTUS is becoming a foot soldier for the far right, is leading to the highest level of disapproval of SCOTUS since polling started.

The Gallup poll that comes from shows that after SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage in June 2015, their standing actually went up.  The prior Gallup poll, from Sept. 2014, showed slight disapproval of SCOTUS, 44/48.  By July 2015, right after their pro-LGBTQ marriage decision, that flipped to modest approval, 49/44.  As the article in my first post notes, even people who call themselves conservative tend to think more liberally than 20 or 40 years ago on some of these really deep issues.

That said, here's what survey says about the narrower issue of who wants to, or has to, bake Gay weddings cakes.  (Hint:  don't ask for one in Chechnya, or maybe even Moscow these days.)

I can live with this.  If the new reality is that bigots don't have to bake Gay wedding cakes, we'll survive.  Hell, I wouldn't even invite them to the wedding.

Of course, this does open the door for Gay bakers to say they personally object to baking cakes for Catholic weddings.  Since the Catholic Church is a terrorist organization that discriminates against and oppresses Gays.  Even though a lot of the Catholic leadership is, ahem, Gay!!!  But my reading of that poll is that people mostly want tolerance.

This is a great example of how minor changes in words can change polling results.  Here's another poll from Pew on the exact same topic, with somewhat different results:

My interpretation is that the phrasing in the first poll leans toward the idea, under "freedom of speech,"  that people shouldn't be forced to do things that conflict with their personal or religious beliefs.  A clear majority of Americans, including a substantial minority of Democrats, are with the majority of SCOTUS on that.  Politics 101 says Democrats should not be pushing issues that unite Republicans and divide Democrats.

The second question puts a bit more stress on the idea that same sex couples should be treated the same as everyone else.  That splits the country right down the middle, if it means in practice some bigot has to bake me a cake.

I think The Gays won the same sex marriage war in part by pushing the idea of tolerance.  When you have a winning hand, you keep playing it.

 

 

 

[Mavica]

You're infatuated with polls.  Strangely so.  Live a little, learn some more things and form your own opinions without seemingly relying on a small sample of what others say they think.

[stevenkesslar]

41 minutes ago, Mavica said:

You're infatuated with polls.  Strangely so. Live a little, learn some more things and form your own opinions 

Duh!  No shit.  Polls suck.  Everybody knows that. 

Except me, I guess.  By the way, love that "sad" icon.  It's almost like it's not a Steven Kesslar post if @Mavica doesn't trash it.  I missed you, buddy.  Where ya been?

But, yeah.  What kind of loser would fixate on polls and shit?  You clearly understand it makes little sense to care about anybody's opinion other than your own, @Mavica.  And most things worth saying can truly be said in a brief one sentence put down.  But I give you credit.  You said in a different post you actually listened to Brian Tyler Cohen for four minutes.  That's a long time for a guy who mostly posts in bumper stickers.

Sadly, truth be told, there are other losers like me.  Like my friend Thalia.  So I'll tell you a verbose story relevant to this thread, and my point.  She worked for Basic Rights and Marriage Equality for years.  And she's the kind of loser that NOT ONLY pays attention to lots of polls.  She'd actually do these focus groups and shit.  Like, really?  How strange!  How sad!  What could you actually learn listening to like six fucking people?  Why fixate on that shit?  Live a little!

Anyhoo, long story short, because she's been at the center of the Gay mafia for a very long time, they did seemingly crack the code.  What they learned through lots of polls and focus groups (WTF? focus groups?  such bullshit!)  and years of trial and error was this.  Intellectual appeals to concepts like "fairness" and "basic rights" were not sufficient to move people in the middle on issues like same sex marriage.  What they learned is the most successful arguments came from the heart.  And often involved referencing people moderates know who are Gay.  You might not be for same sex marriage because it is fair that Gays have the same rights as Straight people.  But you might be for it because you love your Gay nephew, who has a sweet boyfriend he wants to marry.  Stuff like that.

There's a flip side, which goes to the subtle difference in those polls I posted above.  So if we want to win TODAY, as opposed to in 2015, we might want to care what people think.  Which I am fully aware you don't particularly care about, since you know your opinion.  Who needs polls?  

Anyways, the strongest argument our opponents had, which is exactly what killed that key 2008 referendum on same sex marriage in California, was the idea that The Gays want to shove our values down children's throats.  If not outright prey on them.  Hence, the Princess ad.  How do I know this?  I get around a lot.  I've traveled all over the world and met LGBTQ leaders from all over the world, mostly as an activist volunteer.  But the relevant thing to this specific point is for years, as a volunteer, I led volunteer teams who went door to door in California to persuade people to vote for same sex marriage.  Here's a good bumper sticker for you:  "Values start at home."  Or a sentence:  "No one wants to take parents' rights to teach their children their values away."

1 hour ago, Mavica said:

learn some more things and form your own opinions

I know it will shock you that I am passionately opinionated when it comes to fighting for stuff like same sex marriage.  So, I kind of know what I think.  And feel.  And I have for a long time.  But it does turns out other people's opinions matter, and can be changed.  Who knew?  Certainly not you!

How Marriage Equality Supporters Beat The "Princess" Ad

I know this is a stretch for you, @Mavica.  My sense is you like to hang out in Florida, bitch about how Democrats keep losing, and post bumper sticker size ideas.  God bless you.  But don't be surprised if you keep losing in Florida.

That article is long, detailed, and about -ugh! - polling.  The good news is that you can simply watch several 30 second YouTube ads embedded in the article, about The Gays and values.  They are from various states where we actually won same sex marriage by using these ads.  If you could tolerate four minutes of Brian Tyler Cohen before shutting it off, you'll be fine with a few minutes of how we won statewide campaigns.

If I had to identify one moment and one message that turned the tide, and turned lots of losses into lots of victories, this was it.  By 2015, when SCOTUS and our excellent legal eagles won The Big One, The Gays - meaning vast armies of volunteers like me - had laid the groundwork by getting a majority of the country on our side.  SCOTUS justices actually cited public opinion in explaining what helped turn the legal tide.

Funny story about globe trotting Thalia I can't top, even though I have been all over the world.  She's so good at this messaging, polling and organizing stuff that they recruited her to Ireland.  Months after we won the SCOTUS fight, they won same sex marriage at the ballot in Ireland.  Using the messaging and organizing techniques that Thalia taught them had worked in the US.  She was my organizing partner in crime for years on several big fights in Oregon and California.  So I know the bag of tricks.  Interesting story about one of the Gay community leaders she worked with.  This guy, Leo, was against same sex marriage when he started his political career on a local Council in 2010.  He came out in 2015, around the time she persuaded him to help lead the fight to win same sex marriage.  He's now Prime Minister Of Ireland.  Who knew people could be persuaded, and change?   (Polls say at one point he was the most popular PM in Irish history.  But who the fuck follows polls?) 

So thanks for your advice, @Mavica.  I appreciate it.  But I do get around, and have all my life.  You might try to get out around Florida a bit more.  And maybe talk to people, especially moderates,  with other opinions.  Maybe you can help turn your state's losing streak around.

[Pete1111]

On 6/30/2023 at 5:40 PM, stevenkesslar said:

An interesting example of how this works in practice.  And how nuanced it is.  Overall, I take this to be mostly good news for The Gays.

Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections in dispute over services for same-sex weddings

Every poll I have seen documents that the overturning of Roe V. Wade, and maybe a broader perception that SCOTUS is becoming a foot soldier for the far right, is leading to the highest level of disapproval of SCOTUS since polling started.

The Gallup poll that comes from shows that after SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage in June 2015, their standing actually went up.  The prior Gallup poll, from Sept. 2014, showed slight disapproval of SCOTUS, 44/48.  By July 2015, right after their pro-LGBTQ marriage decision, that flipped to modest approval, 49/44.  As the article in my first post notes, even people who call themselves conservative tend to think more liberally than 20 or 40 years ago on some of these really deep issues.

That said, here's what survey says about the narrower issue of who wants to, or has to, bake Gay weddings cakes.  (Hint:  don't ask for one in Chechnya, or maybe even Moscow these days.)

I can live with this.  If the new reality is that bigots don't have to bake Gay wedding cakes, we'll survive.  Hell, I wouldn't even invite them to the wedding.

Of course, this does open the door for Gay bakers to say they personally object to baking cakes for Catholic weddings.  Since the Catholic Church is a terrorist organization that discriminates against and oppresses Gays.  Even though a lot of the Catholic leadership is, ahem, Gay!!!  But my reading of that poll is that people mostly want tolerance.

This is a great example of how minor changes in words can change polling results.  Here's another poll from Pew on the exact same topic, with somewhat different results:

My interpretation is that the phrasing in the first poll leans toward the idea, under "freedom of speech,"  that people shouldn't be forced to do things that conflict with their personal or religious beliefs.  A clear majority of Americans, including a substantial minority of Democrats, are with the majority of SCOTUS on that.  Politics 101 says Democrats should not be pushing issues that unite Republicans and divide Democrats.

The second question puts a bit more stress on the idea that same sex couples should be treated the same as everyone else.  That splits the country right down the middle, if it means in practice some bigot has to bake me a cake.

I think The Gays won the same sex marriage war in part by pushing the idea of tolerance.  When you have a winning hand, you keep playing it.

 

 

 

I'm somewhat relieved to hear you are not worried, because I am very worried.  But maybe I worry too much.

Nevertheless here are two things I worry about.

First, denying service for creating a web site seems nearly benign. 

I am definitely one of those people that prefers not to have service from someone that is antigay.  I'm careful, e.g. I would never consider surgery at our local Catholic hospital.  And so on. 

But the idea that it is acceptable to deny service because I'm gay sounds like a scary world.  Again, I worry a lot.

Second, I am not confident marriage equality won't be overturned.  Do we know there are already members of SCOTUS that would undo Obergefell v. Hodges? We just don't know how many. 

We also know there are members of far right think tanks and alt right Xtian groups that want to re-criminalize being queer. 

Frankly, it's slowly happening already in red state legislatures.  The pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction.

When Niki Haley recently campaigned how great life was back in the 1950s I thought of Tab Hunter, just turned 24, arrested in 1955 for attending a party that was busted by the cops.  It was all gays and lesbians, dancing together. Tab wrote in the Hollywood Reporter he had been invited to a party by a friend and gone for the free food.  

Some folks prefer those terrible old ways.

So I worry.  

 

 

[TotallyOz]

I think things would have been very different if we did not allow Trump to appoint multiple SCOTUS judges. However, people sat home (Bernie forever) and did not vote. The result is the shit we now have and the mess it has and will continue to make for us (gays) and others.

There is one main reason to vote every 4 years. The appointments. Little other reasons. But, as rights are taken away and we move toward a more conservative Christian nation we have no one to blame but those that sat home and did not vote many years back.

[forky123]

The direction of SCOTUS has now been set for a generation or more. These actions are thin thin edge of a very big wedge. Anyone thinking it's gays that have "gone too far" are the same idiots that got the US into this mess. Things are going to get a whole lot worse. There's no point fighting it through a highly biased court, direct action on businesses who discriminate is the way to go. 

[TotallyOz]

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

The direction of SCOTUS has now been set for a generation or more. These actions are thin thin edge of a very big wedge. Anyone thinking it's gays that have "gone too far" are the same idiots that got the US into this mess. Things are going to get a whole lot worse. There's no point fighting it through a highly biased court, direct action on businesses who discriminate is the way to go. 

While I agree with part of what you say, I think the way to go is to elect a democratic President with balls who will change the SC. It is possible, just no one with the balls to do it.

[forky123]

It isn't possible with the electoral system in place and the rank stupidity of the majority of voters. It's time for the democrats to throw away the rulebook and take on the GOP at their own game. 

[Pete1111]

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

It isn't possible with the electoral system in place and the rank stupidity of the majority of voters. It's time for the democrats to throw away the rulebook and take on the GOP at their own game. 

You make a good point.

Even if the Dems kept their nose clean 24/7,

how the GOP spreads culture war misinformation and spreads lies about our government and the Dems needs a far better response.

The GOP may be shooting themselves in the foot by supporting criminal and ignorant politicians yet the Dems could be taking better advantage.

Back to the OP,

Corporate America knows that  workplace diversity is a competitive imperative.  So,  I say "no, the gays have not gone to far."

Then, can the Dems wake up Corporate America to help stop this ant-diversity crazy train the GOP is on?

Or can the Dems pay attention to the Lincoln Project and to the clever young Dems in the House that are rubbing the GOP's nose in their mess?

Or do we just need more @stevenkesslars out their banging on doors. 

Or all of that and more.

Yet, a lot of voters base their decision on their personal economic situation.  Do the Dems know how to make a better case for that?  

I fear they don't.  So maybe it is time to throw away the rule book.  Our gay lives are at stake.

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

20 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

I'm somewhat relieved to hear you are not worried, because I am very worried.  But maybe I worry too much.

Nevertheless here are two things I worry about.

I didn't say I'm not worried.  I am.  Especially about Trump winning in 2024, if we have a recession.  I said I think this SCOTUS ruling is  "mostly good news" for the Gays.  I stand by that.

Clarence Thomas, and his fact-hating wife, are two very good reasons to be devoted to Our Mother Of Perpetual Worry.  The ruling I feel far worse about is the affirmative action ruling.  Not requiring a bigot to bake my wedding cake won't stop me from getting married.  You made the same good point, @Pete1111.  Let the bigots lose my business.  I used to be a Catholic.  They lost my loyalty over this fight.  But ending affirmative action will literally close college doors to minorities, including some groups of Asian American minorities.  By the way, most polls suggest that a majority of Americans support ending affirmative action in college admission, too. 

There's no question that, writ large, SCOTUS is now the voice of the reactionary right wing.  And we should be worried.  Because they are trying to push the nation to the right.  Hopefully, like with gutting abortion in 2022, it will be one reason voters seek balance in 2024 by electing Democrats.  But it is definitely time to organize, organize, organize.

All that said, they're not taking same sex marriage away.  Clarence Thomas, the hypocrite, for sure would if he could.  He can't.  There's a quote I absolutely love, from Jeb Bush, stated around when we won the SCOTUS war:  "It’s thousands of years of culture and history is just being changed at warp speed. It’s hard to fathom why it is this way,”  Jeb Bush said.

He's right.  He doesn't get it.  Clarence Thomas still doesn't get it.  But I love that quote.  I feel like, "I did that.  We did that.  My friends, like Thalia, did that."  It was not the battle of the year, or even of our lifetimes.  It was the battle of the millennium, or civilization, as Jeb said.  And we won.  And we won without buying guns and firing bullets.  We won by opening our hearts.  That doesn't mean it could not be taken away, if we stop organizing.  But it does mean we know how to win an incredibly tough fight.  We should be, and are, proud of who we are.

I wanted to start a debate about the SCOTUS ruling.  I think the polls are correct, and useful.  They make it clear there is some balance, which we should seek to understand.  On the one hand, the polls suggest most people don't want to treat to The Gays unfairly.  If the Gays want to fall in love and spend their life with their partner, they should be able to, just like The Straights.  A majority of every demo now support that, including Blacks - who some people incorrectly blamed the Prop 8 defeat in 2008 on.  Even Republicans are now 50/50 on the question of same sex marriage.  Independents and Democrats are wildly in favor of it.  But, on the other hand, I think a majority react against the idea that people (conservatives) are going to be forced to do things that go against their personal and religious beliefs.  At core, it's the same thing as The Princess Ad.  Fear mongering that The Gays are going to impose their values - dangerous values - on our kids, or on us.

DeSantis has the public on his side on most of his anti-LGBTQ crap in Florida.  I would bet money they poll tested Don't Say Gay and they crafted it specifically to put Ron on the side of a fight he knew he could win.  Both in terms of knowing he had the votes in a Ron-O-Rama Republican state legislature, and in terms of saying things most people actually agree with.  To prevent @Mavica from trashing me for caring about what moderates think, again, I won't post lots of polls.  But even Democrats with kids are worried about this stuff being taught in elementary schools.  So Ron read the polls and focused on that.  Pretty much the same thing that happened in California in 2008.  Dave Fleischer, one of our national LGBTQ  organizing gems, spent a few years dissecting polls and focus groups on that disheartening loss.  It was white Democrats, largely in the Bay Area, that shifted in the final weeks of the infamous same sex marriage campaign.  The fear mongering was most effective in flipping the votes of parents who were worried about their kids somehow being indoctrinated.  

Unfortunately, Florida is now Homophobia Central in the US political debate.  Tim Gill and the Gay mafia, who helped turn states like Colorado around, need to send in friendly warriors like Thalia and Dave and focus on Florida for a decade or two.  And, if they are going to be effective, they need to start by listening. 

I'll wind my rant down by posting a point/counterpoint:  Ron DeSantis, and Dave Fleischer.  I find Dave's video to be really empowering and heartwarming.  It is the kind of thing that clearly needs to happen in Florida.  I know it worked in California.  And, by the way, this stuff IS happening in Florida.  Conservatives went nuts registering voters and using Spanish language media and basically flat out fear mongering about The Gays and The Socialists.  So face to face messaging and organizing was happening.  But on the right, using fear.  That's how they turned Miami, a Democratic fortress, around. 

That said, the polls clearly show that DeSantis won by 60 % because about that percentage of Florida voters saw him as a competent Guv who did a good job on the hurricane and a good job on the economy.  I think he is blowing it by running for Culture Warrior In Chief.  I mean, how in God's name do you make Donald Trump look like a liberal when it comes to being a bigot?  But that is what DeSantis is doing.  Ugh!

https://twitter.com/DeSantisWarRoom/status/1674899610379116546?s=20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmlfnr151rI

God bless Dave.  I don't need a poll to tell me that if you showed a group of moderate swing voters these two videos, they would be turned off by Ron's almost cruel attack on The Gays.  And they would be touched by Dave's message of opening hearts and minds, and tolerance.

Since @Mavica made it about me, me, me, I reflected on that.  I think the problem for me is that I lived TOO MUCH.  I spoke to Dave once, about 25 years ago, when I was interviewing for a job to run a campaign to win a Gay rights ordinance in Miami, which Thalia told me about.  I was just coming out, and Gay South Beach and circuit parties were of course a magnet.  I could have gotten the job, probably.  But I figured taking a hard job so I could party in South Beach was a bad idea.  I took a different job that involved spending four years putting together two statewide coalitions in Oregon that demolished Enron's effort to fuck up electricity, like they did in California.  We won permanent rate-based streams of funding for renewables and low-income weatherization and energy assistance, which has made Oregon a leader on those issues for decades.  Meanwhile, sadly, that Gay rights fight in Miami in 1997 lost when hundreds of Christian conservatives stormed a City Council meeting.  Same old, same old.  Bless Anita Bryant's heart.  I made good choices, in retrospect.

But my key decision was in 2000 I gave up a very successful organizing career to be a male escort, which basically involved having lots of fun and sex all over the world.  So some of this is I like posting about politics so I get to pretend I made different, and arguably better choices. But I have no regrets.  2008, 2009, and 2010 were fun.  Instead of being a paid organizer, I got to be the bestest little Gay volunteer while people like Thalia, the top level consultants, came in and helped us organize.  I had a blast.  And we eventually won.

On the topic of LGBTQ organizing, goods news.  Will Rollins, a nice young Gay guy who almost took out a conservative Republican in my California House district in 2022, recently announced he wants a rematch in 2024.  So there's a 50/50 chance he could win.  It will take about 10,000 votes, and lots of messaging and door knocking.  Turns out The Gays are good at that.  Game on.  😊

[stevenkesslar]

17 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

There is one main reason to vote every 4 years. The appointments.

Sorry to be a picky bitch.  And I know I'm hogging bandwidth.  But the issue is really every 2 years.  And especially on SCOTUS, the issue is Democratic turnout in midterms.

Democrats went into 2010 with 57 Senate seats.  We lost six, but still had a majority.  In 2012 we actually won two back, for a bigger majority.  Then in 2014 we lost 9.  In both cases, but especially 2010, that had a lot to do with crappy Democratic turnout.

On this issue, in an alternative America where Republican and Democratic turnout were simply equal, two things would not have happened.  First, Republicans would not have had the votes to block Garland.  Second, if we assume Trump would have won anyway, Democrats would have had the votes to wait to replace RBG.  So instead of having a 6/3 minority, Democrats would have had a 5/4 majority.  It was the midterms that done it.

This is one advantage of Democrats doing well with the moderate suburban Moms, relative to a decade ago.  They are more reliable voters in midterms.  So we want them on our side.

I'll repeat that on two of the three big issues that just came down -   affirmative action, and conservatives denying services to The Gays by arguing it conflicts with their religious beliefs - the bigot wing of SCOTUS knows they have a majority on their side, I suspect.  So they are helpfully setting up some culture war fights in 2024 that they think they can win.  Student loans is interesting.  Especially when you frame the question around what Biden actually proposed  - relief of $10,000 to $20,000 targeted to working class people who are not rich and mostly don't have rich parents - most people are for it.  So I'd bet money that fight will help Biden with young voters in 2024.

There are some tough decisions that need to be made, I think.  The Senate really is the core of it.  If we can't win in North Dakota or Indiana or Missouri (three states Democrats lost Senate seats in in 2018), the best we can hope for is this stalemate and gridlock.  Which could last for a long time.  (Note to self:  we did win a Congressional vote on same sex marriage during the stalemate, so it ain't all  bad.)  Those three states are not known as hotbeds of LGBTQ activism.  Or even of Gay Pride parades.  They are probably places where Republicans can do well by arguing that some nice Christian bakery on Main Street is going to be forced to bake some pink wedding cake for Pete and Chasten.  Who, by the way, read the tea leaves and moved to Michigan.  Where Pete no doubt has a more promising political future. 

If The Gays want to keep winning, we're going to have to figure out these states that used to elect "working class" Democrats, but now are Ground Zero for Ron-O-Rama culture wars.  Thankfully, we have great leaders who know how to do that.

[Mavica]

LOL!! Help is on the way:

 

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, Mavica said:

LOL!! Help is on the way:

 

I'll take the bait, and use it to make a point actually relevant to this thread.  In other threads you at least make a pretense to address the subject of the thread, before you get to the put downs.  I don't think you've said one word about your view of the SCOTUS ruling.  Other than, perhaps, the word "polls."  Which you basically used to trash me because I care about what swing voters think.  

I'm a zealot about organizing.  Most people are not into it, which is fine.  Organizing relies on a fairly small percentage of followers and an even smaller percentage of leaders.  I like people.  So I like organizing.  I like trying to persuade people.  The LGBTQ community, thanks precisely to heroes like Thalia and Dave above, changed America and changed the world when it comes to perceptions about The Gays.  I'm extremely proud of us.  I don't need to whine to a shrink about it.

Are you saying you feel like Rodney, and you need a shrink?  We are happy to listen to your problems, my friend.  Like how, in Florida, your team keeps losing.  And your Governor sucks.  And you have nothing good to say about him.  And how the Democrats have abandoned you.  And how Florida is now Homophobia Central.  These are all problems we solved in California long ago.  Our Guv was on the forefront of pushing the legal barriers on same sex marriage.  If I get my way, in two years my US Rep will be a Gay legal eagle who took out the dean of California's diminishing conservative House caucus.  But you think your bumper stickers are efficient, and correct.  And whatever I say is the stupidest thing you've ever heard.  See a pattern?

Now here's the part actually relevant to this thread.  And, I know.  Ugh!  Polls!

NEW: Polling from Progress Florida & Florida Watch Shows Floridians Unhappy with Direction of State

Seems like the culture war is losing!  Just to be clear, that is a poll of how Florida voters feel about their Guv after he spent 2023 pushing through a culture war agenda in Florida.  Not only is culture war Ron-O-Rama flopping in the Republican Party, and the nation.  He's flopping in his own state.  Poor thing!  Maybe Ron's the one who needs a shrink.  

I know I've drawn fire from my fellow poster Rodney when I have said positive things about Ron in the past.  I stand by what I said.  In that past poll, earlier this year, he had 60 % approval in Florida.  This poll last Spring showed him at 53 % approval, but 63 % approval when it came to managing the hurricane response. Past polls also show he had net positive approval on the Florida economy.  They have one of the lowest unemployment rates in America, which has the lowest unemployment rate in about 50 years.  Thanks, Joe!  So what seemed clear six months ago was this guy was perceived as a competent Guv with conservative values, who was popular with Independents and even many Democrats.  Not because of culture war Ron-O-Rama, but because he was seen as competent.

I guess the theory was that "compassionate conservative" is just so 2000.  "Culture war conservative" is the latest thing.  And it does seem like Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, who are sort of the "kumbaya" wing of the GOP, ain't getting nowhere.  The sad thing is Tim and Nikki, who tend to be the people who take down Confederate flags and talk the language of compromise and tolerance, are shifting their language to being more strident.  They are running for POTUS as Republicans, after all.  That's sad.  So I guess it makes sense that Ron thought he'd out-hate Trump.  But it ain't working.  As Rodney would say, it's a bumper sticker that is so obvious it doesn't even need to be said.  Why not go for the real thing?

But Ron gambled on the idea that "culture war" was the winning ticket.  And he ain't winning.  And he is losing the cred he built in his own state by appearing to be a competent Governor who had reasonable conservative values.

Again, being the contrarian who is infatuated with polls, I will note that after he signed Don't Say Gay, Ron's popularity in Florida went up slightly last year.  My guess is Don't Say Gay didn't really move the needle either way.  The polls say pretty clearly that people in the middle are very skittish about teaching anything about sex in school, at least before high school.  But if you read this recent poll a majority of Floridians are against Ron's very restrictive abortion ban.  And they are wildly against Ron's "Guns' R Us" policies and laws.  If Democrats want to play culture war, they should be proud of the fact that they opened the door for same sex marriage - which most Americans support - but then go on and on and on about abortion and guns.

There!  That's today's political therapy session from Steven Kesslar.  No charge, Rodney.  After all, you're a friend.  😉

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 7/2/2023 at 6:25 AM, forky123 said:

It isn't possible with the electoral system in place and the rank stupidity of the majority of voters.  It's time for the democrats to throw away the rulebook and take on the GOP at their own game. 

 

On 7/2/2023 at 8:47 AM, Pete1111 said:

Yet, a lot of voters base their decision on their personal economic situation.  Do the Dems know how to make a better case for that? 

From your keyboard to Secretary Pete's lips,   @Pete1111.

 

I get the tone of frustration in the comments above.  Which is what I feel, too.   But I go back to the fact that we have very talented leaders - from POTUS to Veep to Transportation Secretary.  So we should let them lead.  If Republicans are smart, they'll do the same thing.  Speaking of which:

 

 

I posted Chris Christie because I think Dana Bash set up a great, thoughtful point/counterpoint.  I would be happy if the 2024 fall POTUS campaign were between Secretary Pete and Governor Christie.  They are both among the most articulate spokespeople and competent leaders of their party.  Even if Christie won, I'd much rather have him than either Lying Don or Ron-O-Rama.

On the point about the LGBTQ SCOTUS ruling, I agree with almost everything both guys said.  More important, I'd argue they agree with each other.  Christie is right that the ruling is about, to use my word, tolerance.  It's not saying you can put "No Gays Allowed" signs on the doors of Christian bakeries, or churches.  If somebody does that, Christie is right.  They'll be sued by same Gay lawyer.  Pete is right that The Gays are not stampeding to Christian bakeries (or Christian bathhouses 😯) to get what they need.  It is a manufactured issue to chip away at The Gays' rights to score political points.  Christie basically says the same thing.  If we want to talk about kids, why aren't we talking about child poverty and hunger?  Why aren't we talking about test scores?  What about fentanyl?

Here's why I'm confident.  Joe and Pete, among others, proved in 2020 you can be a compassionate liberal and win.  One is POTUS, and one is Transportation Secretary. 

My strong guess is Christie will prove that what was true in 2016 and 2020 is still true in 2024.  You can't be a compassionate conservative and win.  MAGA don't want to talk about whether and how child tax credits will cut Latino poverty in half.  Which they did, for part of Biden's Presidency.  Even though we Republicans love the Blacks and Browns just as much as we love The Gays.  What we really want to talk about is how socialist deranged teachers are forcing our children to have their penises cut off by Disney and Socialized  Medicine!!!!  That's how you win Republican primaries these days.  Sorry, Chris!  But thanks for at least trying to be the kamikaze dude who takes Trump out.  It might work.  Good luck, and God bless.

The reason I think Christie and Buttigieg agree is that both are saying, "Don't take the bait."  Pete's argument is that this is all a distraction from the economic issues that people care about.  He's right.  I think that's what's behind those Florida polls above.  People in Florida like Ron when he cleans up after a hurricane and makes unemployment low and the economy grow.  They don't want culture war and abortion bans and more guns.  Pete's giving people in the middle who feel that way a reason to vote Democratic.  Christie is giving them reasons to vote Republican.  But there is no evidence that's what the "Don or Ron?" MAGA Party wants to do.  Again, good luck, Chris.

Pete's biggest problem, which he can't say, is that inflation has been killing Biden.  If inflation goes away - which it is - and is replaced by a recession, that won't help, either.  So the big gamble is that by November 2024 Bidenomics will mean a growing economy, a rising stock market, low unemployment, and new factories and bridges - right here in Kansas in my own back yard! - as far as the eye can see. 

I think Pete is right.  Talking about Christian bakeries is a distraction.  So then we should not talk about Christian bakeries.  It's the economy, stupid!  Let's talk about insulin prices and child tax credits.  And building chip factories in Arizona and bridges in Pennsylvania.

[stevenkesslar]

Religious right gets blindsided by angry parents in a Southern California school district

Quote

Three Southern California school board members backed by a far-right pastor narrowly won election last fall in campaigns fueled by pandemic rage.  Then they banned critical race theory and rejected social studies materials that included LGBTQ rights hero Harvey Milk.

Quote

Now, they’re fighting for their political lives.

This is somewhat encouraging news.   It would be nicer if the culture wars just went away.  But let's be realistic.  If we are going to fight culture wars, I'd rather be winning them.

At least in blue states like California, it seems like whoever starts the culture war loses.  Try banning LGBTQ curriculum and saying Harvey Milk was a pedophile, and it won't go well.  Not even with moderate Republicans, like the one quoted in that article.  Not so much because they revere Harvey Milk.   They just are sick of culture wars, I bet.   Same reason Ron-O-Rama lost 10 % of his approval rating in Florida, and arguably a shot at the Presidency, when he shifted from cleaning up after hurricanes to culture wars.

In red states, on the other hand, there is no evidence of life-threatening political backlash against the deluge of laws banning CRT or "gender-affirming care" or talking about Harvey Milk.  Meaning the Republican Governors and legislatures who passed those laws got re-elected in 2022 by big margins.  But, as I just noted, if the Ron-O-Rama show flops nationally because people aren't clamoring for culture war, that will help The Gays.

That area described, Temecula, used to be in the 41st US House District of California I think.  When they redistricted I think they moved it so that Temecula is out, and Gayish Palm Springs is in.  It matters because Gay lawyer Will Rollins came within a few points of defeating Republican Ken Calvert is that district in 2022, and is up for a rematch in 2024.  I could actually see this helping Rollins.  His pitch is sort of, "I'm a lawyer who worked with the government to fight terrorists.  I just want everyone to have common sense rights."  If school board members are pissing parents off by fighting culture wars over Harvey Milk, it probably helps guys like Rollins in blue states.

[lookin]

It won't be news to anyone here that gay folks are not all cut from the same cloth.  Even in our small world here in the Politics forum, there's diversity and difference of opinion in every thread.  In my opinion, 'the gays' is commonly used to create divisiveness much as 'the Jews' was used to create warring segments of German society.  I know it wasn't the intent of the OP to put us into a silo but there are, in fact, people who do have the intention of creating silos within an otherwise collaborative society.  And it's something to be keenly aware of.  Falling into that trap means a steep descent for all of us.

Trump demonstrated that dividing society into warring factions is a good fundraising tactic, a way to assemble street gangs, a path to get back in the White House and perhaps one day to bring an end to democracy in the US.  He's shown a few others how to use these tactics.  Although he's still the most accomplished in this country, that could easily change.

As far as I can tell, 'the gays' is not yet the wedge group that will divide our society into dysfunction.  There are a number of groups who have been given trial runs: 'the Muslims', 'the Chinese', 'the Blacks', 'the Mexicans', 'Antifa', 'the Leftists', 'the Deep State', 'the Woke', 'the Coastal Elite', 'the Democrats' - and whoever else will be the next group that will energize enough followers to bring in the money and swing an election.

Fighting these tactics from within a silo is not, at least in my opinion, the way to go.  Rather, the fight has to be in resisting silos in the first place.  Pastor Niemöller had it right nearly a century ago.

So, no, I don't think 'the Gays' have gone too far.  To the extent we consent to inhabit a silo, we haven't gone nearly far enough.  When we join with other siloed groups and pulverize those walls, even then we'll just be moseying up to the starting line.

[Mavica]

I thought it strange that the writer of the comment, assumably a gay man would use the the phrase "the Gays".  I was going to post something about that but didn't.

Here's an expanded description of Niemöller's writings:  (see:  Martin Niemöller - Wikiquote}

• • The origins of this poem first have been traced to a speech given by Niemöller on January 6, 1946, to the representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt. According to research by Harold Marcuse, the original groups mentioned in the speech were Communists, the incurably sick, Jews, and people in occupied countries. Since then, the contents have often been altered to produce numerous variants. Niemöller himself came up with different versions, depending on the year. The most famous and well known alterations are perhaps those beginning "First they came for the Jews" of which this is one of the more commonly encountered:
    • First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me.
• Another variant extends the comparisons to include Catholics and Protestants:
  • In Germany they first came for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.
• Other translations or variants:
  • In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
    And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
    And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
    And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
    • Twenty-five years later Niemöller indicated that this was the version he preferred, in a 1971 interview.

  • When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I did not speak out;
    As I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    As I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I did not speak out;
    As I was not a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

  • When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
    I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
    When they locked up the Social Democrats,
    I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
    When they arrested the trade unionists,
    I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
    When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
  • First the Nazis came…
    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out —
    because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
    because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
    because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
    because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me —
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I was fortunate to attend a 1979 NYC Broadway performance of the play "Bent" starring a naked Richard Gere and David Dukes, a powerful play which focused on the concentration camp imprisonment and extermination of gays during "the Holocaust".  When Jews frequently say "Never forget!", those of us who are gay need to remember not to forget our history, too.  The struggle never ends.